an exercise for sim pilots -- a 1 G roll

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Tony writes:

Ah, but if you are capable of the task, you can apply some classical
physics to the information provided in the archive and do the analysis
yourself.

Acceleration is a change in velocity. Climbing from the ground (or
from any constant altitude) is a change in vertical velocity (since
the initial rate of climb is zero). Therefore climbing involves
acceleration. G forces are nothing more than acceleration. Therefore
climbing changes G forces. QED.

You are correct, but for typical climbing and decending the amount of G away
from 1 is so small that as a pilot it is still "1". Entering a climb or a
decent moves a G meter such a small amount, you can't see the needle move
and you can't feel the small difference in the seat of your pants. There
are small G changes in a barrel roll, but not enough to really feel. As a
pilot, the manuever is called "1 G". Keep in mind this is in comparison
with other aerobatic manuevers that go to routinely 3 to 10 Gs.

Danny Deger

Danny, you are correct when you say the actual deviation from 1 G is
small for climbs, but small isn't good enough. I wanted what we trained
in the sciences would call 1, an integer, not 1.00. The problem I could
not resolve in entering a climb is not getting the airplane to pitch up
30 degrees and maintaining 1 g into the seat -- it just has to
decelerate to do that. I just don't seem to have the degrees of freedom
that are needed.

Some - Mx is an example -- don't quite understand how to do the
analysis, and would rather argue than show where the math I cited is in
error. Too bad, it could have been a learning experience for them.

Do take a look at the neat family of curves in the citation: it's
interesting stuff, and guess what? If the equations of motion are
solved in closed form, G is 1, into the seat.



On Jan 5, 5:53 pm, "Danny Deger" wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote in messagenews:bfftp2t07l335t5qr0s08dsdb80vjr1bnt@4ax .com...

Tony writes:

Ah, but if you are capable of the task, you can apply some classical
physics to the information provided in the archive and do the analysis
yourself.

Acceleration is a change in velocity. Climbing from the ground (or
from any constant altitude) is a change in vertical velocity (since
the initial rate of climb is zero). Therefore climbing involves
acceleration. G forces are nothing more than acceleration. Therefore
climbing changes G forces. QED.You are correct, but for typical climbing and decending the amount of G away
from 1 is so small that as a pilot it is still "1". Entering a climb or a
decent moves a G meter such a small amount, you can't see the needle move
and you can't feel the small difference in the seat of your pants. There
are small G changes in a barrel roll, but not enough to really feel. As a
pilot, the manuever is called "1 G". Keep in mind this is in comparison
with other aerobatic manuevers that go to routinely 3 to 10 Gs.

Danny Deger

Tony writes:

Some - Mx is an example -- don't quite understand how to do the
analysis, and would rather argue than show where the math I cited is in
error. Too bad, it could have been a learning experience for them.

I've explained the error. You cannot change your rate of climb
without accelerating. You cannot accelerate without deviating from 1
G. You cannot maintain a constant rate of climb forever, so you must
change the rate of climb from time to time. And any maneuver that
changes the rate of climb (which, in practice, is roughly the same as
saying any maneuver that changes altitude) will change the G forces.
It's very simple, and doesn't require any fancy physics.

Do take a look at the neat family of curves in the citation: it's
interesting stuff, and guess what? If the equations of motion are
solved in closed form, G is 1, into the seat.

You can solve all the equations you want, but you cannot escape from
the reality I've described above.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.